PROMETHEUS was (Alien 0?) NOW NO LONGER SPOILER FREE. — Page 15

I would love to read Spaihts' script because my suspicion is that it started off as a probably workable Alien Prequel and then it was eroded by re-writes, edited in a vain attempt to get PG-13 and then released in it's current disjointed form.

I say this because the film doesn't work as a film not just as a related tale to Alien.

It's the first three episodes of a visually interesting twelve part mini-series poorly spliced together and trimmed to feature length by a not very gifted amateur.

Bingowings said:

It's the first three episodes of a visually interesting twelve part mini-series poorly spliced together and trimmed to feature length by a not very gifted amateur.

Ouch!

After the generally mixed-reaction from those of us who got it first, I'm gonna be interested to see the reaction of the fans from the rest of the world too, who may be kinda nervous now about how things have turned out...

As this was probably the movie I was most looking forward to seeing this year (along with ESB:Revisited, of course)...I unfortunately agree with most of what you've said in your last 2 posts Bingowings.

And I've a few specific niggles of my own about it that I'm gonna get stuck into, once others have had a chance to see it over the coming days.

Bingowings said:

I would love to read Spaihts' script because my suspicion is that it started off as a probably workable Alien Prequel and then it was eroded by re-writes, edited in a vain attempt to get PG-13 and then released in it's current disjointed form.

I say this because the film doesn't work as a film not just as a related tale to Alien.

It's the first three episodes of a visually interesting twelve part mini-series poorly spliced together and trimmed to feature length by a not very gifted amateur.

I'm pretty sure that is what did happen, i'm sure Scott has mentioned that - in fact i think i have a magazine interview with Spaights. I might have to look it up..Scott kept saying that they'd changed from an actual prequel to something else..

if you had to give it a ball rating?

I may still go see it Friday after I go to the dentist but I'm finding it hard to get excited atm - knowing that the story fails to deliver..(I've learned too much)

I hear they even have plans for a sequel already. Prometheii?

Johnny Ringo said:                                                                                 if you had to give it a ball rating?

I gave it 6 out of 10 on my earlier post.

The first ten minutes or so right up until the crew are all assembled are brilliant.

And there are some really jaw dropping visuals in the film (nearly all of which are spoiled by the trailers).

So it's not all awful.

David is a great character too for reasons I will not discuss yet.

Johnny Ringo said:

I hear they even have plans for a sequel already. Prometheii?

Persephone would probably be a good title.

Saw it. And ugh. To all those who reviewed it in the thread, you were far too gentle. It's a let-down unfortunately.

Here are my spoiler-free two cents. I find that Prometheus's trailers were a big detriment to my experience; they gave away far too much, both visually and plot-wise. This movie needed a more conservative ad campaign. I also felt like some lines were added, for the purpose of being in the trailer; most of the advertised lines (eg. "Big things have small beginnings.") seem rather abrupt in the actual movie.

Prometheus has some positives. Like everyone has said, the visuals are great. I will not dispute that. I thought the effects were spot-on: perfect combination of CGI and practical effects. Scott sure knows how to make sci-fi look right and realistic. As many reviews have stated, the acting, in so far as the leads, (Fassbender and Rapace), was great. They had thoroughly interesting characters.

Now, the negatives: Though the acting of the leads were good, I couldn't determine exactly whose story this was supposed to be; in other words, I felt a lack of a main character. Parts of the movie seemed to be the story of Fassbender's character, while others seemed to be the story of Rapace's character. Anyway, the supporting characters, to me, weren't developed enough. There seemed to be too many people onboard the ship to actually care about. Some characters seemed to be there just to be killed; two of them, especially come to mind as seeming hollow and just being there for the sake of showcasing danger. To sum up, I didn't really feel emotionally-connected with most of them. A smaller cast, like in Alien, might have been stronger.

The lack of strong supporting characters may have been fine, if the movie didn't suffer from it's biggest problem: an awful and muddled story structure. In the latter part of the movie, it seemed to lack focus, yet it tried to move at a break-neck speed. There were many tangents, which were made, only to be resolved quickly; to be frank, parts of it felt like a bad fan edit. Nothing seemed fleshed out. The story didn't have a linear progression.

Frankly, I'd be very curious to see if the deleted scenes; judging by how awfully this thing moves and the lack of development of some characters, I would think there are many. Hopefully, an extended edition may be made that would improve the film tenfold (like Scott's "Kingdom of Heaven"). I think this film would have been better with a longer running time and a slower pace. At roughly 2 hours, it was much too fast.

One final part which really irked me for some reason was the "Aliens" reference. I won't spoil what it was exactly, but I found it really forced. It just took me out of the movie. I didn't think Scott needed to refer to "Aliens" anyway, seeing how it was just a sequel to "Alien" and not really his movie.

Even with all it's drawbacks, I'd still recommend you watch it once, preferably in theaters so you can experience the full visuals. Hope I didn't spoil anything in this review.

5 out of 10.

FanFiltration said:

greenpenguino said:

Saw it today...

 

Meh. It looks pretty and the acting is good but that's about it really.

 

Why didn't they use an older actor rather than What'shisface in obvious old man make-up??

Because what' shisface will play the lead in the sequel as an android (at the actors real age), and they just wanted to build up to it by keeping actor continuity?   

Which would make it even more like AVP1.

It was funny hearing Ridley claim that he couldn't bear to watch that film because if he did he would recognise the film he just made... only more fun and more coherent (though less pretty).

If young Weyland looked like Peter O'Toole it would explain why he (being such a narcissist) was so obsessed with the character Pete played in his most famous film so having the same actor play Weyland as an old man makes perfect sense.

I have been calling Weyland, Guy-Guy Pearce since seeing the film, as his first appearance in the film wrecked the mood of the lovely first 10 minutes or so (not that Jar-Jar was the first thing wrong with TPM). 

Thanks for pointing out that fluff.

I've not posted much in the way of acronyms for a few days so I'm out of practice.

Perhaps he should be inserted into the briefing scene for the lulz.

This here blog entry (PRACTICALLY ALL SPOILERS SO DON"T GO THERE IF YOU WANT TO REMAIN SPOILER FREE) points out shots from the trailers that aren't in the film which hint at major scene reshuffles including characters being removed from scenes.

This seems to hold up my theory that a lot of the problems with this film were caused by clumsy editing.

One particular scene would have made a lot more sense if his observations are correct (it currently makes very little sense at all).

see you auntie said:

 

I had the same thoughts before I knew this, my not cast someone like Max Von Sydow, Christopher Plummer or Peter O'Toole... oh wait not him he's already in the movie, that would be weird.

why not Lance Henriksen? ;)

Johnny Ringo said:

see you auntie said:

 

I had the same thoughts before I knew this, my not cast someone like Max Von Sydow, Christopher Plummer or Peter O'Toole... oh wait not him he's already in the movie, that would be weird.

why not Lance Henriksen? ;)

He already played the same character in the same story in AVP1 so why not do it again. In fact I imagine fan edits will do this sort of thing months after the extended cut comes out.

Anchorhead said:

Bingowings said:

 

I say this because the film doesn't work as a film not just as a related tale to Alien.

It's the first three episodes of a visually interesting twelve part mini-series poorly spliced together and trimmed to feature length by a not very gifted amateur.

Damn.  I really didn't see that coming.  You probably went in most open-minded of anyone here.  Sorry it was a drag for you.  We've all been there, man.

That's how I was with Quantum Of Solace. Coming off of my newly crowned favorite 007 film - Casino Royale - I really thought Quantum would be a home run. Turns out it was a one time only viewing.

Maybe you shouldn't take my word for it then because I couldn't see much of difference between Casino Royale (sans cheese) and Quanta Of Solaces.

Both had that Bourne action style and both had moments of traditional Bond silliness.

The Venetian Palace demolition would not have looked out of place in Moonraker, just as the big evil villain base in the desert would not have stood out much in The Spy Who Loved Me.

Some food for thought AFTER you have seen the film.

INCLUDES LOADS OF SPOILERS BE WARNED.

excuse me the popcorn diarrheas arrived.

Dumbest bunch of scientists ever to appear on screen.

Was it a big deal that they were dealing with alien life?  was alien life commonplace in year 2089?

Why was it a surprise that there was a road on the surface of the planet.  Shouldn't they have known that before they left, do they not have satellites in 2089?

You've been in suspended animation for 2 years, spending a few hours analysing the data you've just got from landing on the surface not enough for them?

How did the geologist and other guy get lost they were in communications with the ship and could get a visual of the map which was being generated by the sensors.

No one in the movie asked Why at any point.  Scientists ask why a lot, but not these fucktards.

It was comical watching when the pains of surgery affect that lady.

Did not know there were more movies on the way.  but that last shot of the ship taking off is soooo Matrix 3.

The opening was great.

Why do all alien species have to be dicks.  And dicks for zero reasons.

Does anyone wear a helmet because it protects you from falling objects.

Benedict Wong was completely wasted.  Him and Stringer Bell could have been so much more.

Were there other people on the ship?  The lady (Theron) has her own apartment, then all of a sudden Weyland shows up with his own apartment and crew, how do you miss those spaces/people on the ship?

Things don't build in this movie, just more stuff thrown on the pile.

Was expecting Theron to turn into Mom from Alien.  Guess that ain't happening.

oh and my favorite.  The device in Theron's room was designed for men at one point then it's got a pair of forceps at the end...  and when can some of these directors just shoot a porno so in their non-porno films we can spend the screen time on plot and cohesive story telling instead of crotch.

Wonder if Chris Carter is slightly miffed.

*EDIT*

oh yeah i'm designing a space suit which can't repel heat.